Drew Peterson's Trial *SECOND WEEK*

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
In Session The witness knew Savio as “Kathy Peterson.” “You met her in a pharmacology class?” “I believe that was my original testimony.” “When you were preparing to testify, and meeting with the State’s Attorney, did they ever say, ‘Well, that’s different from what you told the police’?” “No.” “In fact, you said that in March of 2004 you reached out to the State’s Attorney’s office?’ “Yes, I did.” “You did that from your home phone?” “No, I did not.” “You did that from your cell phone?” “No . . . I did it from a pay phone at Joliet Junior College.” “Is there a reason you did not use your cell phone?” “Yes, there is.” ‘Were you afraid someone would trace your call?” “No.” “Where were the pay phones you used that day?” “Near the cafeteria . . . it would have been in the afternoon . . . probably between noon and 4:30 or 5:00.” “A lot of people coming and going?” “Sometimes.” “Those phones would be pretty busy at times?” “Sometimes.” “You wanted to call the State’s Attorney’s office about this matter?” “Yes . . . I called to determine if there was an investigation into her death.” “You didn’t the police, the state police, the FBI?” ‘No.” “You called the State’s Attorney’s office, on a pay phone, outside a busy cafeteria?” “At the time it wasn’t busy.” “And that call was made to who?” “To the switchboard.” “Did you ask the switchboard to put you in touch with anyone?” “I asked the person who answered the phone if I might speak with someone about Kathy Peterson.” “And what did they say to you?” “I was transferred to another person, and it was a woman who told me, ‘That is not under investigation at this time.’ It was something along those lines. I thought about it for a second, and then I said good-bye.”


In Session “You didn’t tell them anything, other than ‘Thank you for your time’ and ‘Good-bye’?’ “I didn’t even think I said, ‘Thank you for your time.’” “You talked to the state police in this case for the first time in August, 2008?” “”Yes.” ‘And then you spoke to them again in October, 2008?” “I don’t recall . . . I believe so.” “And then in December of 2008, you went into the State’s Attorney’s office?’ “I honestly don’t recall the dates.” “When you talked to the state police the first time, in August, you never told them you’d called the State’s Attorney’s office, did you?” “Actually, I believe I did . . . I have not seen the report, or given the opportunity to examine the veracity of the report . . . I’m not responsible for what they wrote . . . it was a female officer, and I believe I did tell her that.”


In Session “The second time you spoke to them, it was the same officer?” “I don’t recall.” “Did you tell her the second time that you called the State’s Attorney’s office?” “I don’t recall . . . I am not responsible for what she wrote in her report.” “If you read the report, would it help you to recall what you said?” “No.” “Are you suggesting the state police are doctoring their reports?” “I am not responsible for a report. I do not know what she wrote in her report . . . I talked to her, she wrote her report, and I don’t know what she wrote. She asked a question, and I answered it . . . it seems she made a few notes in a very small notebook.”
 
~n/t~ said:
She smiled after! I think it was an "in your face" to the defense AND the JUDGE.

What a bunch of aZZholes! IMO
Click to expand...

Very unprofessional. Wasting time and trying to intimidate witness.
 
Could Greenberg possibly be any more obnoxious? The Judge says to Parks not to "fence with the attorney".......isn't it the attorney who is fencing with the witness? How messed up is that?
 
In Session “Remember meeting with two state police officers and Mr. Glasgow?” “I was introduced to Mr. Glasgow and Mr. Connor; I don’t recall the roles or position of the other people present were.” “That was in December of 2008?” “Yes.” “You told them that it was at the time of the coroner’s inquest that you [first] called?” “I believe it was right before the inquest, sometime around that time.” “Are you aware the inquest was in May?” “No.” “You also have spoken to Ms. Savio Peterson’s family?” “Yes.” “Including Henry, her brother?” “Yes . . . I spoke to Henry on the day that Kathy’s body was exhumed . . . I don’t know the exact date her body was exhumed.” “It was before you talked to the state police, wasn’t it?’ “I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.” “When you talked to Henry, it was before you talked to the Illinois State Police?” “I don’t know what order it happened in.” “When you talked to Henry in 2007, you never told him you had this explosive information?” “No.” “You didn’t call the state police?” “No.” “You didn’t pick up the phone and call anybody?” “I don’t think that’s accurate . . . I believe I called the state police hotline . . .they called me as a result of that phone call.” ‘Have you ever told anyone that you called that hotline?” “The police found me as a result of that . . . they told me it was as a result of my call to the hotline.” Objection/Sustained.


In Session “The pharmacology class you took was an online course?” “Yes.” “So you met her on an online course?” “We took it on computers in the nursing lab.” “The statements about Drew coming into the house . . . that was from November, 2003?” “I believe that was from October of 2003.” “Were you and she in class together in October or 2003?” “I don’t know when our classes ended for that first part of that semester.” “You’re saying that you and Kathleen took a class together in the fall of 2003?” “More than one.” “Was it during the classes or between the classes that you were talking?” “Both.”
 
That's now 2 female witnesses the Judge has reprimanded. Plus he is always challenging the female prosecutor in a way that he doesn't do to the males, especially Drew's boys club. Things that make you go "Hmmmm?"

ETA: he didn't flinch when the locksmith (male) commented on Drew's "nice tie"
 
How was that "fencing"? This judge is an &$&@&&!
 
6m Kara Oko‏@KaraOko

Burmila responds to Brodsky's objection of his own council, "I think that's a first." Courtroom erupts with laughter #DrewPeterson
 
In Session “In the fall of 2003, were you in a class called phlebotomy flow training?” “No, I was not.” The witness is shown a document. “Is that records for your schooling?” “Yes, it’s an unofficial transcript.” “Only you can get the official, right?” “Yes . . . it’s accurate; I’ve seen this before . . . probably about a week ago.” “Why were you looking at it?” “I believe the State’s Attorney asked me if I had a copy of it.” “Because you knew I was going to ask you about it, right?” “Yes.” “Take a look at the fall of 2003 . . .is this accurate?” “This is accurate, and I was not.” The school records are projected for the jury. “So for the fall of 2003 it says you were in Concepts of Nursing?” “Yes.” The witness then identifies the school transcript for Kathleen Savio Peterson. “She was not in class with you in the fall of 2003, right?” “Right . . .I misspoke right her and right now, yes, I did.” ‘Even though you were told to look at your school transcript?” “I wasn’t told that.” “You knew that you previously had testified that you and Kathleen were in Pharmacology class in the fall of 2003?” “Almost ten years ago.” “And you knew that was incorrect?” “I discovered that was incurred when I reviewed my transcript and realized I had transposed classes . . . I made a mistake, yes.” “So you knew you made a mistake previously, and then you made the same mistake again?” Objection/Overruled. “I realized that Pharmacology and the Concept of Nursing class was transposed in the fall of 2002 . . . what are you asking me?” “I’ll move on.”
 
In Session “I remember taking Pharmacology with her, yes.” “Thanksgiving of 2003, right?” “No. I said this conversation took place when we took Pharmacology . . . and then I misspoke.” “So both conversations took place in the fall of 2003?” “Those conversations I’ve testified to today took place in the fall of 2003.” “And she said it to you when you were sitting next to each other at the computers in Pharmacology?” “Yes.” “You were pretty tight with her?” “I thought we were pretty close.” Despite that, the witness did not attend Savio’s funeral, or check on her family. “You were once in an abusive relationship?” “Yes, I was.” “So when she told you these things, you felt a connection with her?” “Yes, I did.” “You never told her to call the State’s Attorney’s office?’ “I told her to call the police.” “Did you talk to her about an order of protection?” “I don’t recall.”
 
In Session Once again, the witness insists that Savio told her about being choked by Peterson “in the fall of 2003.” “Did you know that Ms. Anderson and her kids were living in the house then?” “I don’t know if they were in on that date or not. At the time, Kathy never told me that they were living there.” “Did Kathy tell you her kids were present?” “Yes . . . upstairs.” “Kathy was angry at Drew, wasn’t she?” “Initially, she showed some anger and bitterness, yes, she did . . . probably in the fall of 2002.” “But by 2003, she wasn’t angry anymore?” “No.” “Did you know that she and Drew got divorced in the fall of 2003?” “No . . . she did not tell me the finalization, just that the divorce was pending.” “She never told you about a knife under her mattress?” “No.” “She didn’t tell you that Drew was going to do something to her and make it look like an accident?’ “She was afraid he could do something to her and make it look like an accident.” “She told you that?” “Yes.” “Did you ever tell that to the state police during any of your three interviews?” “I believe I did . . . the first interview was the longest. I believe it would probably have been in that one . . . that interview was a couple of hours.”

In Session Savio was “anal” about keeping the house locked up. “She carried a telephone with her at all times.” Once again, she repeats that Savio told her that Drew might kill her and make it look like an accident. “You testified before the grand jury?” “Yes.” “It’s much more informal than this, isn’t it?” “Yes.” “Remember Mr. Connor asking you, ‘Did she ever use the phrase ‘accident’ at all?’’” “I remember her saying, ‘Drew told me he could do this.’ She did use the words that she was afraid that he could do something, and he could make it look like an accident.” “But you didn’t tell that to the grand jury, did you?” “I don’t think I was asked to clarity that answer . . . I didn’t believe it was a direct quote . . . she told me he said something to that effect, yes . . . that he could do something and make it look like an accident . . . she told me.” “Were you asked about that at the hearsay hearing?” “I don’t know . . . I do believe I said it when I talked to the state police.”
 
Is there some kind of intended insinuation that her outlook is jaded by her own prior issues? If anything, it would make her more alert to the problem which she was.....I think it is great that she called the State's Attorney following Kathleen's death. She was a responsible, decent,caring friend.
 
In Session “You knew she had a boyfriend?” “I knew she had a boyfriend, but not the extent of the relationship . .. sometimes women don’t share anything.” “You never told her to take pictures of the marks?” “No.” “She was losing weight in 2003?” “She was gaunt.” “Did she seem unhappy to you?” “She seemed fearful.” “Did you ever say that before?” “I don’t believe I’ve used that exact word, no.”



In Session “At some point, you had a conversation with Kathleen about a business called Fast and Accurate?” “Yes . . . in the spring of 2003, perhaps.” “You told the state police that you first met Kathleen Savio Peterson in the spring of 2003?” “I don’t know . . . I have not seen the report; I don’t know what they wrote . . . I believe I told the state police I met her in our first year of nursing school.” The witness is shown the report of her first interview with the Illinois State Police. “I don’t believe this is an accurate statement of what I said. The state police person wrote . . .” Objection/Sustained.” “The report says you met her in the spring or fall of 2003?” “Yes.” “And that’s not what you told them?” “No.” “Did she ever tell you that that business [Fast and Accurate] was actually sold in 1999?” “No.” “Do you think she might have told you she was fighting over a business that was sold four years earlier just because she was trying to get sympathy?” “No.”


In Session The witness repeats that she “occasionally” or “frequently” walked Savio to her car. “She was afraid.” “Because of Drew?” “Yes.” ‘But you never saw Drew?” “No, I never saw Drew Peterson?” “You ever think she might be making that up?” “No.”
 
Love how the witness said "What are you asking me?". To which the azzhat replies "let's move on.". Smacked him down!
 
In Session “She would tell you life at home was bad?” “I don’t know if she used those exact words . . . that she was having difficulties.” “Think she might have told you things were so bad at home just to get some sympathy?” “Not at all. Everything she told me, I have no reason to doubt anything.” “She told you she thought her male neighbors were spying on her, and reporting back to Drew?” “No. I don’t remember discussing her male neighbors.” “Did you tell that to the state police?” “I told the state police that Kathy thought there were people who were reporting her actions back to Drew . . . I don’t know if I used the word ‘neighbors.’ I know she felt there were people who were reporting what she did back to Drew.” ‘Did she tell you she avoided going to remote places because she was afraid Drew would find her there . . . get her when she was afraid from home?’ “Kathy was very careful, I believe, where she went and what she did. But I don’t recall using the phraseology “remote places” at all . .. I remember telling the state police that she was afraid that Drew would get her away from home; she had told me that.” “Think she was telling you that to get sympathy?” “Not at all.” “Did she tell you that she was afraid he was going to disable her car?” “Yes . . . she did express fear that it could happen, that it was a possibility that he might do that.” “I hate to ask this, but did you guys talk about Posi-Traction?” (The last question is a reference to the movie "My Cousin Vinny")
 
In Session “In the fall of 2003, the day that I met Kathy in the lab, I was taking a class. I was in the lab possible for tutoring, or for a class. I just know it was in the morning.” “Did you tell the state police in 2008 that you had a conversation with Savio before a class in 2003?” “I’m no sure what I said.” "Would you like to see a report of that interview?” “Yes.” “You told the police that the conversation was during a class in the fall of 2003?” “They wrote ‘the beginning of a class’ … the encounter we had was prior to any classroom activity, or any tutoring.” “She was already there, and then you arrived ‘for the class’?” “Yes.” “And you said she was wearing the fleece top ‘that she usually wore’?’ “That’s what the report says, yes.” “And the report says she pulled you aside?” “I remember taking her elbow and pulling her aside.” “And you saw the marks around her neck, looking like a band?” “Yes . . . every time that I have discussed these marks, I see three separate marks. It has been consistent, using my hands, using three separate marks . . . I, again, was not able to review the report to make sure these characterizations were correct. She told me it was the day after the encounter with her husband that caused these marks . . . it happened in the fall of ’03.”

In Session The exchange between Greenberg and Ms. Parks seems to be getting a little testy. “When you talked to the State’s Attorneys in 2010, you never mentioned a knife?” “No.” “Or to the police?” “No . . . I don’t ever remember Kathy mentioning a knife.” That ends the cross-examination, and Judge Burmila decides to call the lunch recess at this time.
 
In Session The witness leaves the stand, and the jurors are excused from the courtroom. The trial is in a lunch recess until 2:15 ET.
 
impression during the cross examination of Mary (Ponterelli (sp?)neighbor Mary) that the defense was trying to stir up negative stereotypes about Italians and Italian Americans in trying to formulate a character portrait of Kathleen--Kathleen being hot headed, a hell cat, and talking about how their families went way back to the "old country" when they in fact met here in the USA at work. When Mary said that she was "full blood Italian" Lopez said so that is something that you two "had in common". What bearing did that have on anything? Nada
How ironic that it is Joe "the shark" Lopez himself had actually represented mobsters.....no wonder he has that distorted opinion.
Now we have Greenberg doing the same thing.....
This ridiculous reference to My Cousin Vinny only confirms that in my mind.
It is absurd and actually quite offensive.
Once he said "I hate to ask you this......" why didn't the judge say something?
What is the foundation for this kind of questioning?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 145 more.
Total: 3,642 (members: 146, guests: 3,496)

Online statistics

Members online
146
Guests online
3,496
Total visitors
3,642
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,560
Messages
17,971,027
Members
228,812
Latest member
Zerofoxgiven
Back
Top